Since when can animals be considered phenomenon? Forum

[suspicious android]

"Phenomenon" as something that is observable to the senses is the first and most basic definition. "Phenomenon" as something extraordinary is the later definition, suitable mostly for breathless descriptions by TV journalists. LSAT likes to use words that are commonly used in sloppy ways. I'm patiently waiting for them to use "literally" in a way that screws people up.

[erniesto]

Depends if were talking about the animal-in-itself or the animal-as-presented-to-the-understanding.

I laughed. Apparently knowledge of Kant makes you a douche, though.

To the OP, the use of phenomena in this question does seem a bit odd. You should be able to eliminate all the other answer choices. If phenomenon is taken to mean thing, then it's obviously the correct choice. The LSAT likes to be unnecessarily obfuscating like that.

Most people on this forum fail to transcend the obvious. Philosophy intimidates them.

[Shlonster]

Depends if were talking about the animal-in-itself or the animal-as-presented-to-the-understanding.

I laughed. Apparently knowledge of Kant makes you a douche, though.

To the OP, the use of phenomena in this question does seem a bit odd. You should be able to eliminate all the other answer choices. If phenomenon is taken to mean thing, then it's obviously the correct choice. The LSAT likes to be unnecessarily obfuscating like that.

Most people on this forum fail to transcend the obvious. Philosophy intimidates them.

You are my new favorite poster... I really mean that.

[tomwatts]

LSAC doesn't have its own special meanings of words. It just uses words absolutely literally and without regard to whether the definition being used is the most common one or one you'd find four entries down. There's nothing terribly illicit about that, but it takes some getting used to. (Well, other than "some" meaning "at least one"; that one's a little odd.)

On the issue of the inclusive "or": I was trying the other day to come up with an example in which LSAC used an "or" inclusively and didn't specify (as in, didn't say "X or Y (or both)," as is typical) and it mattered. I couldn't immediately find such an example. Nor could I come up with an exclusive "or" that wasn't specified and mattered. LSAC has been known to use both, but it usually specifies when it matters (and I think it always specifies when it matters, because I couldn't come up with exceptions — but I could be wrong).

[MrSoOoFLy]

Actually a phenomenon in LSAT terminology refers to absolutely ANYTHING.

ANYTHING = phenomenon.